[rha] Eight Creepy Things About HRC…

When you hear about the HRC, words such as ‘equality’ pop up all the time. Yet, queers have always known there is more to life, something lustier, and more joyous about our lives than this. Queers bring more to a democratic conversation than going along to get along. Equality won’t get you healthcare. The following are a few of the reasons why the HRC does not deserve your support.

They support the logic of crime and punishment, marriage, war, and patriarchy. In the year after Matthew Shepard’s death, queer groups nationwide took positions on recommending or rejecting the death penalty for Matthew Shepard’s killers (Log Cabin Republicans for, NGLTF and Lambda against) HRC refused to take a position. Their spokesman explained that debates over social justice issues were not “germane” to their mission.

Rather than speak out about the world-making possibilities of queer community building, HRC supports militaritarism. Instead of critique the notion of war as an obsolete approach as early Gay Liberastionists did, the HRC uses its resources to push for queers to join the army. It aggressively parrots pro-war rhetoric in its press releases on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ harms our national security by disqualifying and discharging thousands of brave, patriotic Americans from serving our country—many with critical skills that we badly need to fight the war on terror,”(HRC press release quoting Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon).Following, its bland track record, the HRC has never taken a public position on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

HRC is neglects trans communities. No movement can generate support by distancing itself from those on the margins. During the recent debate and vote on ENDA, the HRC put forth a rhetoric of inclusion. Yet, behind the scenes, the nation’s largest GLBT lobbied to remove Trans protections from the ENDA bill, as they believed would ensure its passage in the House. When the voting was done, HRC sent out this press release after the successful passage of the bill in the House (the bill would be killed in the Senate).

The HRC implicitly rejects the diverse links among classes and races within the GLBT/ queer movements. You will not hear the HRC speak up for working class queers, homeless youth, and queer people of color. What you will hear is the HRC support for a normative view of citizenship which emulates, rather than critiques a depraved model of kinship which hets describe as the ‘nuclear family.’ “Marriage provides families stability and security,” the group states, parroting a Republican model of familiy values. What the group forgets is that many queer because they hope to create a different kind of family and citizenship. Rather than support a monogamy model which proliferate misery and divorce, Gay Liberationists viewed monogamy and marriage as greedy and restrictive.

The point is that HRC refuses to defend pleasure. While the GLBTQ movements are rooted in defense of sexual self determination, you will never hear the HRC say anything about pleasure. In a world with war, violence, and hatred many queers rightfully recognize the transformative political possibilities of pleasure. Today, as the New York Department of Health has stirred up hysteria to generate another round of bath house closures, you will not hear the HRC say a thing about the importance of these vital institutions for queers.

They don’t defend public sexual culture. For as many can remembers, pubs, molly houses, movie theaters, gay bars, baths, and even cruising spots provided a context for queer possibilities and cultural development. They helped constitute queerness as a way of being in the world. As such, attacks on homosexual venues served as an attack on gay identity. Gay liberation began in the late ’60s with the recognition that official intimidation constituted all too regular a feature of gay and lesbian social life. Liberation meant queers would fight back. Flash points included the police raids and ensuing riots at California Hall in San Francisco in 1965 and the Stonewall Inn in New York in 1969. In the end, assaults on queer spaces spurred the call for gay liberation. Yet today, you will rarely hear the HRC support the rights of queers to converge in public commons such as the Christopher Street piers, or bath houses, or clubs.

While queerness is about difference, HRC represents homogenization. We are just like you, HRC pleads to straight people. For HRC, queer sexuality is something to keep quiet about or apologize for. For the liberationists, gay sex was something to revel within and create global solidarity around; “Perverts of the world unite!” was a central Gay Liberation anthem. Gay liberationists recognized that while many homosexuals claimed they were just like everyone else, the dominant culture did not see them that way. As such, gay liberation, in alliance with women’s liberation, created a vision of sexuality as cultural transformation. Autonomy of the body from the state was a central principle of both movements. Both movements questioned basic tenets of family structure and patriarchal authority in America. Over the years, the distance between HRC and these sentiments has only become wider and more pronounced.

They do not represent your interests. In 1998 the HRC endorsed pro-life Republican Al D’Amato for the U.S. Senate. The endorsement of a man who had supported Reagan’s budget cuts, the repeal of abortion rights, and criminal neglect of the AIDS carnage was an act of profound political amnesia. The HRC maintains the 1998 endorsement of Reagan loving, tax cutting, queer senator Alfonse D’Amato and the 2000 Millennium March were part of a pragmatic strategy designed to see their agenda enacted into law. Yet the group has very few results to show for this strategy. The End Discrimination Act did not make it through the Senate, while the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by their hero Clinton. Hate Crimes laws, high on the HRC agenda, are problematic because they emphasize a law and order mentality over social justice and equal protection under the law. The HRC never came close to securing anything resembling justice for people who are gay and in the armed forces, while accepting the premise of an imperial military. Despite heavy lobbying, the group failed to beat back the pernicious Knight ballot initiative in California. As a result, activists are left wondering what the HRC has done with their millions and millions of dollars? What are they doing with all that money?